Letters: DA's office, gay marriage, dogjacking

Copyright 2012: Houston Chronicle

Updated 7:20 pm, Friday, February 17, 2012

Integrity pending outcome

Regarding "DA says she asked state to investigate" (Page B1, Wednesday), we applaud District Attorney Pat Lykos' decision to request an objective investigation of her office by the Texas Rangers. This is the type of transparency that should finally put to rest allegations of impropriety by the DA's Office.

Most disturbing are what appeared to be improper disclosures of a pending grand jury investigation, as the process is supposed to be statutorily cloaked in confidentiality to protect witness identity, while making more effective the administration of justice. But this matter suggests that the rule of grand jury confidentiality was intentionally compromised by a person or persons with an agenda.

The Rangers' investigation will be a sure way to restore integrity to the grand jury process, and should the Rangers find knowing and improper disclosures of grand jury matters ("leaks"), then let the chips fall where they may.

Regarding "Court tosses gay marriage ban" (Page A3, Feb. 8), most of the negative response to this decision has come from those who think the court has overstepped its bounds and that passage of Proposition 8 should have been upheld.

The problem with that logic is that it ignores the fact that civil rights or human rights should never be put to a referendum. Gay people in California already had the right to marry, and thousands of gay couples already were. Proposition 8 attempted to strip that right away.

In 1967 it was still illegal in many states for white people to marry anyone of a different race. The Supreme Court ruled these laws were unconstitutional and said there was patently "no legitimate purpose" independent of discrimination for these laws. Polls at the time showed 70 percent of the people thought the court was wrong and the laws should stay in place forbidding interracial marriage.

In the California ruling by the 9th Circuit Court, Judge Reinhardt said, although the Constitution allows communities to enact laws they believe to be desirable, it requires a "legitimate reason" for a law that treats different classes of people differently. There is no such reason for Proposition 8 to be enacted. It serves no purpose and has no effect other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians.

Ours is a democracy that can only work when we have a Constitution that protects us all from the popular opinion of a majority who might be willing to take rights away from others.

Regarding "Thief wants wallet, settles for pooch" (Page B2, Thursday), as a native Houstonian now living in a town of 3,000, I cannot imagine what my hometown is coming to when a man's dog is taken during an afternoon walk.

What in the world is our nation coming to? To rob a man of his precious pet is just beyond belief. Our police department and mayor continue their excellent policy to protect citizens and pets, and I pray that the person who did this despicable crime is caught.